Dataset Information

Factors associated with attendance at screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Attendance at population-based breast cancer (mammographic) screening varies. This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis assesses all identified patient-level factors associated with routine population breast screening attendance.

Design

CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, OVID, PsycINFO and Web of Science were searched for studies of any design, published January 1987-June 2019, and reporting attendance in relation to at least one patient-level factor.

Data synthesis

Independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction and quality appraisal. OR and 95% CIs were calculated for attendance for each factor and random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken where possible.

Results

Of 19 776 studies, 335 were assessed at full text and 66 studies (n=22 150 922) were included. Risk of bias was generally low. In meta-analysis, increased attendance was associated with higher socioeconomic status (SES) (n=11 studies; OR 1.45, 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.75); higher income (n=5 studies; OR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.68 to 2.29); home ownership (n=3 studies; OR 2.16, 95% CI: 2.08 to 2.23); being non-immigrant (n=7 studies; OR 2.23, 95% CI: 2.00 to 2.48); being married/cohabiting (n=7 studies; OR 1.86, 95% CI: 1.58 to 2.19) and medium (vs low) level of education (n=6 studies; OR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.41). Women with previous false-positive results were less likely to reattend (n=6 studies; OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.88). There were no differences by age group or by rural versus urban residence.

Conclusions

Attendance was lower in women with lower SES, those who were immigrants, non-homeowners and those with previous false-positive results. Variations in service delivery, screening programmes and study populations may influence findings. Our findings are of univariable associations. Underlying causes of lower uptake such as practical, physical, psychological or financial barriers should be investigated.

Trial registration number

CRD42016051597.

SUBMITTER: Mottram R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8634222 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:To investigate the performance of primary ultrasound (P-US) screening for breast cancer, and that of supplemental ultrasound (S-US) screening for breast cancer after negative mammography (MAM). METHODS:Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published between January 2003 and May 2018. Only high-quality or fair-quality studies reporting any of the following performance values for P-US or S-US screening were included: sensitivity, specificity, cancer detected rate (CDR), recall rate (RR), biopsy rate (BR), proportion of invasive cancers among screening-detected cancers (ProIC), and proportion of node-negative cancers among screening-detected invasive cancers (ProNNIC). RESULTS:Twenty-three studies were included, including 12 studies in which S-US screening was used after negative MAM and 11 joint screening studies in which both primary MAM (P-MAM) and P-US were used. Meta-analyses revealed that S-US screening could detect 96% [95% confidential intervals (CIs): 82 to 99%] of occult breast cancers missed by MAM and identify 93% (95% CIs: 89 to 96%) of healthy women, with a CDR of 3.0/1000 (95% CIs: 1.8/1000 to 4.6/1000), RR of 8.8% (95% CIs: 5.0 to 13.4%), BR of 3.9% (95% CIs: 2.7 to 5.4%), ProIC of 73.9% (95% CIs: 49.0 to 93.7%), and ProNNIC of 70.9% (95% CIs: 46.0 to 91.6%). Compared with P-MAM screening, P-US screening led to the recall of significantly more women with positive screening results [1.5% (95% CIs:0.6 to 2.3%), P?=?0.001] and detected significantly more invasive cancers [16.3% (95% CIs: 10.6 to 22.1%), P?<?0.001]. However, there were no significant differences for other performance measures between the two screening methods, including sensitivity, specificity, CDR, BR, and ProNNIC. CONCLUSIONS:Current evidence suggests that S-US screening could detect occult breast cancers missed by MAM. P-US screening has shown to be comparable to P-MAM screening in women with dense breasts in terms of sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rate, and biopsy rate, but with higher recall rates and higher detection rates for invasive cancers.

Project description:BackgroundPreventive therapy is a risk reduction option for women who have an increased risk of breast cancer. The effectiveness of preventive therapy to reduce breast cancer incidence depends on adequate levels of uptake and adherence to therapy. We aimed to systematically review articles reporting uptake and adherence to therapeutic agents to prevent breast cancer among women at increased risk, and identify the psychological, clinical and demographic factors affecting these outcomes.DesignSearches were carried out in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsychInfo, yielding 3851 unique articles. Title, abstract and full text screening left 53 articles, and a further 4 studies were identified from reference lists, giving a total of 57. This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42014014957).ResultsTwenty-four articles reporting 26 studies of uptake in 21 423 women were included in a meta-analysis. The pooled uptake estimate was 16.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.6-19.0], with high heterogeneity (I(2) = 98.9%, P < 0.001). Uptake was unaffected by study location or agent, but was significantly higher in trials [25.2% (95% CI 18.3-32.2)] than in non-trial settings [8.7% (95% CI 6.8-10.9)] (P < 0.001). Factors associated with higher uptake included having an abnormal biopsy, a physician recommendation, higher objective risk, fewer side-effect or trial concerns, and older age. Adherence (day-to-day use or persistence) over the first year was adequate. However, only one study reported a persistence of ? 80% by 5 years. Factors associated with lower adherence included allocation to tamoxifen (versus placebo or raloxifene), depression, smoking and older age. Risk of breast cancer was discussed in all qualitative studies.ConclusionUptake of therapeutic agents for the prevention of breast cancer is low, and long-term persistence is often insufficient for women to experience the full preventive effect. Uptake is higher in trials, suggesting further work should focus on implementing preventive therapy within routine care.